Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > On 6/15/23 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> >> Robert - can you please comment on what you are willing to commit in
> >> order to close out your open item here. My take is that the design for
> >> this, the tabular form a couple of emails ago (copied here), is
> >> ready-to-commit, just needing the actual (trivial) code changes to be
> >> made to accomplish it.
>
> > Can we resolve this before Beta 2?[1] The RMT originally advised to try
> > to resolve before Beta 1[2], and this seems to be lingering.
>
> At this point I kinda doubt that we can get this done before beta2
> either, but I'll put in my two cents anyway:
>
> * I agree that the "tabular" format looks nicer and has fewer i18n
> issues than the other proposals.
>

As you are on board with a separate command please clarify whether you mean
the tabular format but still with newlines, one row per grantee, or the
table with one row per grantor-grantee pair.

I still like using newlines here even in the separate meta-command.

>
> * Personally I could do without the "empty" business, but that seems
> unnecessary in the tabular format; an empty column will serve fine.
>

I disagree, but not strongly.

I kinda expected you to be on the side of "why are we discussing a
situation that should just be prohibited" though.

> * I also agree with Pavel's comment that we'd be better off taking
> this out of \du altogether and inventing a separate \d command.
> Maybe "\drg" for "display role grants"?
>

Just to be clear, the open item fix proposal is to remove the presently
broken (due to it showing duplicates without any context) "member of" array
in \du and make a simple table report output in \drg instead.

I'm good with \drg as a new meta-command.

> * Parenthetically, the "Attributes" column of \du is a complete
> disaster
>
>
I hadn't thought about this in detail but did get the same impression.

David J.